Diocese of Gaylord

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

Would a group of 10 of the same people showing up for 7 AM Rosary every day for 20 years be considered a stable group? If they are not a stable group then what are they? What does stable mean? Is it a measure of quantity? Is it a measure of consistency?

Thats part of the problem. Until there is some sort of clarification from Rome we do not know what makes a “stable group”. Until Rome says something more or rules on appeals from the faithful the bishops will decide this.

First of all, “ByzCath”, I thought you were ignoring my posts. Funny you have resurfaced.

Dear “AlexV”, I have not “resurfaced”. I have been around and have noticed that you have commented on things I have said. I will not let attacks on the bishops stand especially when the attack is on something that is not even implemented yet.

But, I’ll tell you how it’s “disobedient”.

First off, the PASTOR has power under the Motu. The bishop in this case has usurped pastoral authority. He has decided, by his own fiat, that 50 is a magic number. As Cardinal Castillon has noted, no such numerical minimum requirement was ever envisaged by the Motu. If 49…or 9…or 159…wanted the Mass in a parish, the pastor can celebrate it…WITHOUT THE BISHOP’S PERMISSION.

The bishop in this case did not rule on the private celebration of any priest in his diocese. He ruled on the public celebration. And while the Cardinal may be correct in his opinion the fact that the words “stable group” are in the MP leads one to the conclusion that there is a number that must be there. After all, one person is not a group.

 

[AlexV]

On the issue of what consitutes a coetus, the cardinal (who, by the way, happens to be the pope’s official spokesman for this issue) has said there IS NO MINIMUM NUMBER REQUIREMENT. If there had been, as he noted, it would have been in the Motu.

If 30 request it, a bishop can’t say “Sorry, I demand 50.”

That’s called arbitrary, and it violates the Motu Proprio. A “coetus” isn’t 1, certainly. But it certainly is less than 50.

The numbers game was FALSELY REPORTED before the Motu even appeared, and some appear to have clung to it.

As for “implementation” date, the beauty about this is THERE IS NOTHING in the Motu that couldn’t have been implemented already by a generous bishop.

But the whole reason we have a Motu is recalcitrant bishops. Bishops who would do anything to block and prevent this liturgy. Bishops who would do anything to make people feel not quite right for avoiding what you and others have erroneously called the “normative” liturgy (I’m glad you have now abandoned that definitively erroneous label).

The fact is, as some have admitted by their own words, some bishops simply don’t like this Motu Proprio.

So while some territories welcome it and have already started announcing what will be done to respond POSITIVELY, others respond with bullying and recalcitrance.

C’est la vie. But the game is up. In any case, the thread is about the Gaylord bishop, who has acted ultra vires. He has actually decreed you can’t even have a Kyrie in Greek or a Latin hymn without his writtten permission. That’s tyrannical, dictatorial, and beyond his powers as an ordinary. You like the word “normative”…well this bishop has banned the normative language of his territory, barring his explicit written permission. That’s ultra vires. I’d like to see him hold this decision up when a single priest appeals to Rome. Then again, after so many years of chaos and wasteland, one wonders what sort of presbyterate might be left. We can hope not one inspired by his version of Catholicism.

 

[paramedicgirl]

Dear lady,

It is not me that will disparage traditionalists, but their own words speak volumes.

As your own tone does.

 

[paramedicgirl]

The bishop in this case did not rule on the private celebration of any priest in his diocese. He ruled on the public celebration. And while the Cardinal may be correct in his opinion the fact that the words “stable group” are in the MP leads one to the conclusion that there is a number that must be there. After all, one person is not a group.

I see the key word as being “stable” in that numbers don’t matter as much as the stability of the group. A group of parishioners who show up regularly and are committed are stable, no matter what their numbers are. If the Pope wanted numbers to identify his wishes, he would have put them in. Instead, he used the word stable.

 

[AlexV]

No “sour” grapes, Raphael (sorry, I’m not going to call you SAINT Raphael).

Just pointing out disobedience.

The bishop has essentially tried to block a pastor’s prerogative. The bishop is supposed to settle problems that can’t be settled at the parish setting. If he can’t solve them, Ecclesia Dei gets involved.

This bishop has tried to usurp all roles for himself. In effect, if 49 people wanted this and the pastor agreed, this bishop is saying “can’t happen”. That’s ultra vires under the MP. The bishop’s permission is no longer needed, which was the whole point of the MP.

In one sense, the MP is a friendly slap on the wrist. 1988 Ecclesia Dei asked bishops to be “generous”. Many were. Others…and we can certainly think of who they are…gave the ecclesiastical response of “over my dead body”. Hence the MP.

 

[AlexV]

Indeed, Rome’s only bad assumption is good faith. John Paul asked people to be “generous”. Saying no to hundreds (it’s happened, believe me) isn’t “generous” by anyone’s definition.

The MP will be better received than ED was. But there will still be some resistance. The interesting this is, from my records, every bishop who has been less than positive is over 70. Interesting. The youngest bishops…have been very warm and encouraging. Also interesting.

 

[Brendan]

The bishop has essentially tried to block a pastor’s prerogative. The bishop is supposed to settle problems that can’t be settled at the parish setting. If he can’t solve them, Ecclesia Dei gets involved.
.

Exactly.

Say that 4 people approach their pastor and ask for the Extraordinary Form. The pastor agrees ( as he is entitled to under the MP)

A public celebration of the 1962 Missal is now allowed under the MP. Case closed. No bishop involved, in fact the bishop opinion on the matter is effectively meaningless.

Now consider 49 parishioners in another parish. They request the same, but their pastor is unwilling. So NOW the bishop can be involved. The bishop wants ( as is his right), at least 50, so the bishop say ‘no’. The 49 may appeal to the Ecclesia Dei Commission. They might do something like assign a local priest who is willing and able to say the E.F. to come in on a regular basis and celebrate the E.F. The pastor and bishop would be obligated to follow the decision of the Commission on this matter.

So yes, Rome has provided all that is necessary and no additional clarifications on what constitutes a ‘coetus’.

 

[st_raphael]

Just pointing out disobedience.

** If ** this is true, it is detraction, pointing out to those who did not know it, and doing so publicly, the so-called sins of others. I may be relatively new, but something clicks in my cerebellum that this is against forum rules, to air the failings of clergy when there is no public statement made by him to back it up, and identifying the bishop!

The bishop has essentially tried to block a pastor’s prerogative.

Your proof is? And if he did, do not have an obligation to publish his reasons, rather than your own take on it?

 

[Wolseley]

Indeed, Rome’s only bad assumption is good faith. John Paul asked people to be “generous”. Saying no to hundreds (it’s happened, believe me) isn’t “generous” by anyone’s definition.

The MP will be better received than ED was. But there will still be some resistance. The interesting this is, from my records, every bishop who has been less than positive is over 70. Interesting. The youngest bishops…have been very warm and encouraging. Also interesting.

Yes, it is.

The “Spirit of Vatican II” liberalism will die out just as Arianism did; the sad thing is that many of us will be dead before the pernicious nuisance finally disappears from the earth…it was our misfortune to be alive during this period of history.

 

[AlexV]

Hello, Joysong. Nice to see you may have been canonized.

You seem very interested in the forum rules of late.

I didn’t compel the Bishop of Gaylord to try to ban all languages except English without his express written permission.

Nor did I say he committed any sin (so let’s avoid red herrings about “detraction”, shall we?)

Lying is a sin also, objectively. You’re not “relatively new”, except in this new guise.

 

[st_raphael]

 

[Friar_David_O.Carm]

I see the key word as being “stable” in that numbers don’t matter as much as the stability of the group. A group of parishioners who show up regularly and are committed are stable, no matter what their numbers are. If the Pope wanted numbers to identify his wishes, he would have put them in. Instead, he used the word stable.

And this is a very valid opinion. Yet the document does not spell this out in any way so there are also other opinions that are just as valid. Some of those opinions have more weight behind them as they are held by those in authority.

I also wonder how Canon 905 will play out in this.

Can. 905 §1 Apart from those cases in which the law allows him to celebrate or concelebrate the Eucharist a number of times on the same day, a priest may not celebrate more than once a day.

§2 If there is a scarcity of priests, the local Ordinary may for a good reason allow priests to celebrate twice in one day or even, if pastoral need requires it, three times on Sundays or holydays of obligation.

Seems that parishes that have large (stable) numbers coming for the Ordinary Form might set a limit on the Extraordinary Form.

 

[Malcolm_McLean]

** If ** this is true, it is detraction, pointing out to those who did not know it, and doing so publicly, the so-called sins of others. I may be relatively new, but something clicks in my cerebellum that this is against forum rules, to air the failings of clergy when there is no public statement made by him to back it up, and identifying the bishop!

Detraction applies to sins which are essentially private. So if a priest loses his temper at Mass, it is detraction to tittle tattle about it. So too, obviously, if he has an affair with a parishioner.

However if he, say, decides to use beer instead of wine at Mass, on the grounds that Americans are a Northern people and don’t need imported rubbish, it is not detraction to mention the act. It is designed to be a public reinterpretation, to put it charitably, of Catholic teaching.

 

[st_raphael]

Malcolm: I disagree, per the Catechism:

2477 Respect for the reputation of persons forbids every attitude and word likely to cause them unjust injury. He becomes guilty:

• of rash judgment who, even tacitly, assumes as true, without sufficient foundation, the moral fault of a neighbor;

- of detraction who, without objectively valid reason, discloses another’s faults and failings to persons who did not know them;

Apparently the matter is private. Even if it isn’t, the point is that none of us knew the circumstances, and Alex’s allegation was disparaging, charging him publicly with disobedience without proof. Even if there happened to be a web link that mentioned this as fact, it is not wise to assume and state that he is disobedient without knowledge of the bishop’s reasoning.

Remember, too, that there was “objectively no valid reason [for Alex] to disclose this failing,” other than his own personal displeasure and opinion.
Forum Rule #19:

Identifying individual parishes, clergy, or hierarchs as “unfaithful to the Magisterium”, guilty of “liturgical abuse”, or otherwise engaged in unacceptable or unpopular practices, based on personal “knowledge” or opinion

 

[AlexV]

[Edited by Moderator]

The thread is about the decree of the Bishop of Gaylord. His decree is a matter of record now. And his decree is ultra vires.

But, again, as we have noted, some bishops are joyful about the Motu. Others are looking for every possible stricture, in violation of the spirit of charity that pervades ecclesiastical law. It’s amazing how those bishops could in many cases be guessed before they even spoke.

[Edited by Moderator]

 

[AlexV]

And, a side note.

It’a amazing how some people are not allowed to make the slightest statement or draw the slightest conclusion about anything, while other people are allowed to make pronouncements about the sins of others.

In this case, the issue is, can a bishop ban Latin?

The answer is no. Latin is the normative (to use a word some like very much) language of our rite. A bishop can no more ban latin than he could say to a priest, “You may never use Eucharistic Prayer II”.

No permission is needed to use Latin. It is the right of every priest of the Roman Rite.

The bishop in question on this thread has issued a letter that reserves to himself the right to judge whether any language other than English may be used, even for singing a single song during Mass.

That’s ultra vires. We might speculate it’s also dictatorial, heavy-handed, control-freakish.

The people are not blind. They see that in Omaha, for instance, the bishop has opened a new parish for the EF. Meanwhile, in Gaylord, the bishop demands written permission to sing a single Ave Maria or Panis Angelicus in Latin.

A bit out of control, me thinks.

 

[paramedicgirl]

And, a side note.

**It’s amazing how some people are not allowed to make the slightest statement or draw the slightest conclusion about anything, while other people are allowed to make pronouncements about the sins of others.
**
In this case, the issue is, can a bishop ban Latin?

The answer is no. Latin is the normative (to use a word some like very much) language of our rite. A bishop can no more ban latin than he could say to a priest, “You may never use Eucharistic Prayer II”.

No permission is needed to use Latin. It is the right of every priest of the Roman Rite.

The bishop in question on this thread has issued a letter that reserves to himself the right to judge whether any language other than English may be used, even for singing a single song during Mass.

That’s ultra vires. We might speculate it’s also dictatorial, heavy-handed, control-freakish.

The people are not blind. They see that in Omaha, for instance, the bishop has opened a new parish for the EF. Meanwhile, in Gaylord, the bishop demands written permission to sing a single Ave Maria or Panis Angelicus in Latin.

A bit out of control, me thinks.

Yes, very good logic, Alex. I have noticed this over and over. Anyone who holds traditional views is quickly dismissed and even maligned by some, yet they themselves can sound all the trumpets they want about their own views.

 

[st_raphael]

Alex,

You are barking up a wrong tree in not addressing my proper user name, and it appears you are not going to stop. I have reported it and ask that you desist at once. How arrogant you are in your presumptions!

 

[DustinsDad]

…And this is from Redemptionis Sacramentum:

1. Mass is celebrated either in Latin or in another language, provided that liturgical texts are used which have been approved according to the norm of law. Except in the case of celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people, Priests are always and everywhere permitted to celebrate Mass in Latin.

The Bishop lacks the competence and authority to prevent a Priest from celebrating the current Pauline Mass in the Latin language.

The Bishop probably claims that *all *masses in his diocese are “celebrations of the Mass that are scheduled by the ecclesiastical authorities to take place in the language of the people.”

DustinsDad

 

[AlexV]

I wouldn’t talk about arrogance when your nickname is that of a saint.